This blog used to be about politics. Not so much anymore as I have worked through
my fascination with that subject. It now seems appropriate that with a new president
and the end of the Bush nightmare that I move on to new subjects that are more in
line with my current interests. I may still occasionally express an opinion about
political matters but for the most part I will be commenting on music, photography
and personal observations. Thank you for reading.

Well, they are saying Clark will win Oklahoma. That makes me happy. I like Clark, but I like the fact that Oklahoma didn't jump on the Kerry bandwagon even more. I am extremely... repeat... extremely pleased that U.S.S. Lieberman has finally been sunk. I actually started singing when I heard the news. Other than his former VP runningmate status he was always a fringe candidate in my eye.

I do feel bad for the guy because he's a human being and he deserves a certain amount of respect, but he is the only candidate that would make me feel like staying home on general election day. It was painful to watch a democrat use GOP language when talking about the tax cuts and the war in Iraq. I think its not too much to ask that all democrats should adopt truthful language when talking about the issues. Don't get me wrong, President Lieberman would have been ok with me if it meant Citizen Bush. But I'm glad we have better options still viable.

Of course, I wouldn't be too heartbroken if the Kerry and Edwards campaigns lost their momentum as well. I still like Clark or Dean. But I am resigned to the fact that who I like matters less than who everyone likes.

That said...

Electability: What kind of horsesh*t is this? Is electability where we all try to second guess what everyone else will do based upon what everyone thinks everyone else will do? Sounds like schooling to me, we all group together for safety. The candidate positions become irrelevant as we view them more as a point of rally rather than a candidate of choice. I think its an unfortunate by product of our system. We know that liberal democratic values are dominant in this country. We've been moving in that direction with little course change for decades. However, that matters little when a well organized and ideologically driven minority all vote in block for their anointed candidate, even when that candidate is a proven fraud. We just think that the country is more conservative than it is because we've had networks of transmitters out there spouting right wing time warp positions from a bully pulpit.

Its too easy to say that if everyone votes for who they want rather than who they think will win we'll actually get the candidate that we deserve. While true in theory its too easily subverted by a small organized minority committed to one candidate to achieve victory. I think winner take all politics is a recipe for picking second rate politicians.

The South: Isn't this a case of identity politics at its worst? I think it's long past the time that we get past this notion of North and South. People can ask, with all honesty, why people in other parts of the world just "can't get along" when we here in this country still treat the Civil War like it happened yesterday. Get over it people. Its hurting us because people use the built in prejudice to get us to vote against our real interests. In this class warfare any and all wedges will be used to pry people apart. A worker in the north has to deal with the same issues as a worker in the south. Dean was dead on when he addressed this issue. He was crucified for trying but bless him for pointing out that pitting north against south is lowest common denominator politics. I think the media play this angle way too much as well. Rarely is it publicized that so called "red states" are overall recipients of government funding. The more agricultural regions of this country have benefited immensely from wealth redistributed from more wealthy coastal and northern regions. Oklahoma gets $1.52 for every dollar we send to the federal government. That's like earning a 50% rate of interest on every dollar we contribute in taxes. So why are we so angry at the government for taxing us to death? You would think we would be clamoring for more taxes. But "red states" also have higher rates of poverty as well. What gives? Could it be that in the general scheme of things average people are getting screwed while that extra $0.52 that comes back gets funneled into "worthy" hands, namely those that help get certain candidates elected again and again?

Its called pork; Farm subsidies that go to big agribusiness, military bases used as life support systems for small communities, or military contractors employing hundreds of thousands of people in states with powerful representatives?

Is it a Dem vs. Rep thing? Heck no. This is class warfare people. There are two teams and the politicians only pretend to play on our team when its election time. In our hearts we realize this. Even when we elect good people we send them to the lions den to get gobbled alive by lobbyists. You fail to bring home the bacon and it doesn't matter if you have an (R) or a (D) on your door, your mudd.

Special Interests: Its a term that we hear a lot. In political speak it means "bogeyman". Special interests are "them", the people that are making things all go downhill. This election cycle we will hear Democrats attacking corporate lobbyists. What's wrong with the country is that these corporate lobbyists have climbed into bed with Bush and are sucking the treasury dry and robbing ordinary people of their livelyhoods. This is what they'll say, and they'll be right. But we should not be so presumptuous to assume that once The D's regain the mantle of power they will kick the lobbyists out to the curb with righteous indignation. I can make a pretty clear prediction that even if a Democrat wins, we will not see the general nature of Washington change. No matter how nice it sounds when Kerry uses his line about "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" we should not expect to see televised images of lobbyists dressed in their suits standing on street corners holding "Will pimp for government money" signs. Not gonna happen. I'll tell you why.

The Democrats are trying to get back in power, not to kick out the lobbyists but to regain a bargaining position. The irony of our system is that getting into the positions of power means convincing voters that you really mean it when you stand up there and say "I'll fight for you!". Sometimes politicians really mean it. In general though I think the parties always keep an eye on the ball, consolidating power. To achieve this you need leverage, and that means money. Controlling who gets what is the name of the game. Funneling money to your supporters is part of the game right? Lets ask Tom Delay:

"There is an old adage, said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas. To the victor goes the spoils."

In case you didn't know the "spoils" just happen to be our tax dollars, which are nothing more than favors to be doled out in a big political chess match.

Bush's reckless spending and disastrous fiscal policy is not some weird "where did that come from" anomoly. Its payoff. The Republicans under people like Delay have been incredibly adept at lining up their corporate ducks. Bush's $200 million warchest of large contribution donors is nothing short of a wholesale indicator that the (R)'s have won this round. All we wait for now is to see if the (D)'s can rally enough voter anger to shift the balance of power in their favor. The best we can hope for is a president that will balance the needs of the country versus the demands of his party to cater to the "special interests".

In Bush, there is no balance, this is obvious. He is a party man through and through. It was painfully clear when this lightweight came out of nowhere in 2000 backed with an army of "Pioneers". His pandering to the money interests is only matched by his hamhanded pandering to the people of this country.

Good lord.. Steroids and Moon Colonies, and not one word of Osama Bin Laden?